Answered by:

First Impressions

Question

I did a (bigger) overview of this CTP.
In the beginning i was exited to see new features and tools that really can make the developers life easier. Espacially Embedded Modul Designer (EMD).
After a few days of exploring and little testing i really miss some basic features.

e.g.:
Boot Branding (announced in the pdf), USB Boot, SD Boot
I wasn't able to install on another device except the local HDD.
The dependencies seem to be at a very early stage.

My first image/test was trying to keep the metro iu out of the system while using:
USB Boot, Boot Branding, Working Explorer Shell w/o Metro UI
It ended in a none-useable image, but at least it booted up.

Very nice are:
'Componentizing' is back --> (Embedded Module Designer)
'Universal' Filter instead of EWF or FBWF
WEDU 2.0 included in Installer (Support WES7 and WES8)

I haven't tested the filter yet (need a running configuration first) but i'm curious.
WEDU 2.0 is initialized but can't say if it really works. I like the support of both Embedded Systems but it doesn't find any updates (yet)... for WES7 (<-- no update information deposited?) or WES8.

A few things are unclear for me - is this some CTP related or general thing?
- Why can't i search in ICE for registry or files anymore?

Missing but exacptable for a preview:
Driver Names are little kryptic (this will be fixed for sure)
Some spelling in ICE (Update the DS (...which now should be Catalog ^^))

Notes:
I don't get some dependencies. (Metro UI needs e.g. Applocker and MANY other things)
Dependencies in generel doesn't seem elaborated at all. What is this 'Unified Configuration Tool' (mentioned in pdf)?

I wished there is a larger help-document already with the ctp for the unique wes8 features.

Answers

Thank you for the feedback. Regarding your questions on Windows boot screen customization, please refer to the below chart.
Hope the information helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Best regards,

Carlos.

Firmware
Type

Customization of the Windows
Boot Screen (this is the screen shown right after POST)

UEFI without custom boot logo in BGRT Table

UEFI with custom boot logo in BGRT Table

Legacy BIOS

Suppress Windows Logo on Boot Screen

Supported

Not supported. If there is a logo stored in the BGRT table then that logo will be shown during the Windows boot phase.
There is currently not OS supported method to suppress the boot logo stored in the UEFI GBRT table.

not cool guys, not cool. - no real improvments - just simplify some manuel steps.
splitting each boot-part apart from my pov it just adding rows. - we want official custom boot-logo support. - bootres.dll is just there and only contains the fish picture, why not providing some tool to create a custom bootres. - or providing a bootloader
which doesn't check (with a flag and W/O! watermark in the system) the digital signature on the bootres.

All replies

Dependencies are at an early stage. We currently just have "direct" dependencies implemented. You'll notice that things like modules conflicting with one another, or dependencies on "one of these modules from a group", like Language packages, are not yet
implemented. Look for that in the next release.

You're right that WEDU isn't hooked up to the back end yet. You can check out the new UI, and you're correct that it'll support both WES7 and 8. In the next release we'll hopefully have it hooked up to the backend so that you can start testing out the experience
of detecting and installing updates.

ICE search is in progress. File and registry search are coming back, but they weren't implemented yet, so we removed those options from the UI.

I'd love to get some clarification on what you were looking for in the documentation and were not able to find. The documentation is still in a fairly early stage but I'd love to get your feedback to assist the content publishing team's efforts to expand
and improve the WES8 documentation.

Thank you so much for the feedback on the CTP. As you have discovered this is a very early release, many things are far from ready.

The fact that you like having a module designer ("componentizing is back") tells me that it was probably a good decision to spend a lot of time and energy working on this tool.

Are there things you see in the build you wish we were not investing in, are there things like Module Designer that you're glad to see some investment and we should keep doing, stop doing, do more or less?

PART 2
Nice to hear about some welcoming feedback.
You want feedback, you get it.
Finally I feel that someone hears about what customers say.

catman.exe:
I tried to enumerate the index with catman but the command failed. I checked my typing
2 times so I think there is a bug in cat man or the command doesn't work at all.

Dependencies:
I understand that all this stuff is in early stage. I saw that my German college
"wolfgang unger" wrote some connect bug reports.
Btw: nice to have German as a second main language ;)

Ice and catalog:
Good to hear that registry und file search isn’t just implemented yet. But to be honest
I don't understand why? - The registry setting are still in the cab files (manifest or
mum files) and afai understand the build in emd files contain only description
Information and dependencies. Can ice8 handle wes7 files in future - I guess not but maybe?!
* Export feature i guess will come in the next release. - It's needed to keep Customers Moduls/Packages in one place.
* I really would like to use the option 'Disabled' like it was in TD. Disable /not include but still in the Answer/Conig file.
I didn't understand why it this option is included in wes7 when this info will be gone after the next save, than i could delete it any way.
Cosmetic bug: the label spelling and position of the earlier "answer file" now "configurati" is wrong. // but I think everybody noticed it already.

EMD:
It was the best decision I can see in wes8 so far.
In wes7 it becomes really a pain in the butt if you try to add registry settings and may other command that depend on an application you want to run with some (a) syncrouns command. - I never understand how this even should be managed within wes7 - creating
a template for every program including commands in ice?.. Possible.... but what about removing? Yeah. Right. No go. Also there are some applications that depend on each other... than this has to monitor all over by yourself.

emd improvements (I would be glad to see).
-when will the commands run? // some kind of order (running updates or fixes only make sense if the program is installed first)
- It seems that this question is still in the room. Out from the release notes and not handling emd files within ibw/ice build order seem to me pretty critical.

"Add/Edit files" panel.
I love the way now you can edit paths. It was a pain within CD to change them while importing from another partition. (text editing afterwards was normal procedure.)

"Install Commands" panel.
* I really would like to see a new column that is added on the right for arguments.
I don't know if arguments already are supported, but I hope and guess.
(Than the view of the files should be without the path itself (to keep it short))
* Some checkbox / option to delete the file after running. (Behind the arguments column)
E.g. you run an installer in silent mode with arguments/switches you would add all the time a delete command (or one rd /s /q) to delete the setup files. - best solution may also can be handle exit codes condition only at 0 (or maybe there is an advanced button
for this setting to handle several codes) or this is feature is handled like some additional 'RunOnceEx' command/tab/field which always deletes the file after successful run.

What I don't like.
Adding dependencies takes a long time to load. If you want to create some dependencies
to some component which contains more than one element. emd seems to scan all emd files
in the catalog again. I really would recommend caching the dependencies or even making
Them available like some mmc snap-in panel "Add -->" "Remove <--" (I think you know
what I mean). The same while creating a category and 'browse'.

Cosmetic bugs in emd (last emd related stuff).
* "Add/Edit files" expand the drivers or files tree and while scrolling the headline will scroll with the field.
I guess this is also for other fields.
* Finish windows is always empty

Documentation/help:
In general I explore the index/catalog within ice and see new or unfamiliar
Modules/packages/components and select them end hit f1.
Bug: first of all the hit f1 and jumping to the package usability is gone. - Please
bring it back.
Also I wasn't quite sure if "Set Windows Shell as Shell" is the explorer shell - I guessed it only can be the explorer shell but also could read this info in the help file.

Investigating:
In wes7 I had to deal with some kind of problem which are driver-core related.
(Exclude some kind of Core-Drivers) - With a hack i was able to delete them but nobody form MS wanted to help us.
Otherwise i don't know things you should or should not investigate atm. - E.g. why was some brother printers in the Core? I don't get it - wasted space at all.

General:
*it was pretty unclear for me that the emblook.msi is actually the unified configuration
tool (utc). it's mentioned in the help "(utc)"... btw: this is all what’s mentioned in
the help ;)
*what about offline building? I know the commands and how to do it. But e.g. Sylvain ekel told me this feature will come for wes7 - ah yeah..?! Still waiting. Some kind of guide (not just out from the blog) or even preferred GUI tool to install the embedded
image to volume would surely really great for some folks.
* Please take more care on OEMs. Don't take OEMs the right to e.g. deliver IMAGEX within products without providing an alternative. - i didn't understand it at all. - Now we have finally DISM for all but this was just ridiculous

Last:
Ok I’m very captious (hope this is the right word) person but i really don't get why
Microsoft doesn't clear their WIM images before providing them. it just would make a
More cleaner look. All install.wim images I have seen aren't clean. If you open a wim file with 7zip you see [files] which are deleted files within the image. Using the export command will skip these files and create a clean wim. - Also some enumerated settings
in currentcontrolset are in the registry hive. I can say that last time the wes build got created you used a WD hdd and had 2 Ethernet adapters or so. - deleting enumerated information from CCS1 and CCS2 would be just nice. but CCS2 isn't any more in WES8
if i remember right from the win8dp.
So I think this is it... so far.

In general I explore the index/catalog within ice and see new or unfamiliar
Modules/packages/components and select them end hit f1.
Bug: first of all the hit f1 and jumping to the package usability is gone. - Please
bring it back.
Also I wasn't quite sure if "Set Windows Shell as Shell" is the explorer shell - I guessed it only can be the explorer shell but also could read this info in the help file.

Windows Embedded Developer and Scripting Guy //Germany

Thanks for the details on the documentation, KNARZ!

While the F1 help functionality was not hooked up in time for CTP1, the CHM does contain the module help in the Technical Reference -> Modules Technical Reference section. I know it's not as convenient as being able to use F1 from ICE, though.

Hooking up F1 help is currently being worked on. By no means is it being discarded.

The writing team will check into the "Set Windows Shell as Shell" and see that it's better explained.

Thank you again for your excellent and thorough feedback, it really does help us improve the product and the help files!

First off, a general explanation as to why things seem to be missing/incomplete in the toolset when compared to WES7. The EMD files created in Module Designer are actually the same format for our operating system modules now. We've completely redone the
architecture under the hood so that custom modules and OS modules are treated in the same way. Because of this change, lots of features in the toolset needed to be ported over to the new architecture. So far we've completed the initial porting, so basic things
work. Things that you've noticed that are missing, like search options or various other bugs are a result of us just not finishing that porting yet. In the vast majority of cases, we're not cutting features or intentionally making them buggy, we just haven't
hooked things up yet.

WES8 ICE is not backwards compatible with WES7 ICE. You will be able to install both tools side-by-side. We're considering implementing a function that ports your WES7 answer file to WES8 so that you can easily move your WES7 configurations to WES8.

Export feature - to be clear, what are you asking for here? Take a module from your catalog and export it to a location on disk?

Disabled - Can I ask what scenarios you use disabled in? What's your development process for when you would want to use disabled?

Custom modules - Glad to hear you like them! We also recognized that WES7 ICE's 3rd party software experience was painful. Hopefully modules and Module Designer help out.

Command ordering - What kind of ordering are you looking for? Ordering of commands within a module, or ordering between modules? Today there are up and down arrows on the Install Commands page of MD. The order listed is the order they'll be executed. We're
also considering an install order page of MD that lets you order your module install relative to other modules. Which do you think you would use more, and why?

Modules between ICE and IBW - there are some quirks with specific types of modules and some problems with how they'll be installed today, as mentioned in the release notes. The goal is definitely to have everything work smoothly between all the tools though,
and we're constantly making improvements to make this better.

Install command arguments - The reason we have a flat text box today is so that you can add arguments both to the left and the right of your selected payload. I can add <program> /quiet, or msiexec <program>, depending on my needs. Making that
more obvious is a good idea though. If you have any suggestions, they're welcome.

Delete files after install - Great idea!

Dependencies perf problems - Yep, good observation, we'll look into making this speedier. Related question - did you notice that you can add multiple dependencies before clicking OK?

UTC - Yeah, it's not very obvious how to get UTC now, or what it does. The team is looking into ways to make it easier to incorporate into your images.

Offline build - We currently have no plans to implement offline build for WES7 or WES8. However, you might want to look into a tool one of our MVPs wrote that does offline build for WES7. I'm pretty sure he's working on a WES8 version as well -
http://www.elbacom.com/embedded/products/tools/woc/overview. Can I ask what scenarios you'd like to use offline build in? What advantages do you find most useful over IBW installs?

Clean WIM - First off, the process used to build Windows extremely complicated. After the source code is assembled, we need to do some extra processing on a live machine, which is why you see these artifacts. However, yeah, the things you point out are definitely
things we should clean up. Thanks for pointing these out, and we'll try and take care of them.

Yes, I just thought therefore that ice seems to be nearly the same it may could handle WES7 and WES8 or like "Opening a DS or AnswerFile with WES7 information 'switch to WES7/8' Mode" but having 1 or 2 ICE on the dev-machine doesn't matter at all. ;)

We're considering implementing a function that ports your WES7 answer file to WES8 so that you can easily move your WES7 configurations to WES8.

This sounds nice.

Export feature - to be clear, what are you asking for here? Take a module from your catalog and export it to a location on disk?

I wrote this under the ICE Topic (unfortunately this MSDN Forum is messing up formatting’s - so I did none)With export I mean Templates like in ICE7. So that I can create a Template with some (most Custom Modules) to create a 'Set' or 'Group' and add them
to its Base Config/AnswerFile.This scenario is useful for Customers-Software you want to Add.
* Some kind of removing the template and therefore the realted Modules also would make sense... but this might me little complicated. Or also just not Useful (not clear myself about it)

Disabled - Can I ask what scenarios you use disabled in? What's your development process for when you would want to use disabled?

Him, I wrote this little wrong. This 'Setting' atm is an information for the Windows Setup itself. (BTW: What about this Top-level thing? never saw a 'false' value in any Module/Package). I would wish to have a disabling feature like it was in
XPE/WES2009. - Scenario: Keep one (complete-final) AnswerFile for a customer and (may) also see what differs from your Base/Standard AnswerFile which was the Basement for the customers-AnswerFile. E.g. they may wish not to support printers or anything like
that, but in your (my) BaseFile (I use one template as a Base ^^) some Packages are included the don't want - but you want to know how it differs at all.Of course you can diff the AnswerFile (also with the Tool) but this would be a separate process. This is
nothing critical but seems to me an easy to implement feature. - And it was in XPE. ;) - Or it's just useful for testing reasons --> Disable XXX see what’s happening in the system and then just enable it in the AnswerFile, deploy again and see the difference
without keeping in mind what exactly you disabled/skipped before - you just see it in your AnswerFile.

We're also considering an install order page of MD that lets you order your module install relative to other modules.

Both are important. The arrow thing is definitely a good feature so far for today :).I mean it in the way you described it: 'relative' to other Modules.Some explanation why I think it's important.Of course you can do a Package/Module with all Software you
want to install, but if you want to change only a part of it you would have to do it all over again.And I think the size of the Module seems to be a reason as well. If the Customer wants many Application you would separate them in some Modules and if an update
of some Application which is also maybe the size of the Application itself than it might be become a pain to exchange the update in the -One-in-All- Module instead of just replace the separate Module.Updating the Module may also wouldn't be the answer, therefore
that some company’s want some explicit Versions of some kind of Software.Therefore you need a relative order for Modules as well. I think this is compareable with MSI and MSM files. And in relation to the export issue i than create a Set/Group as a Templates
with 3-4 Custom Modules and than add it to he Customers-Base. I just want to be very flexible in Install-variations.

Delete files after install - Great idea!

But explicit! ;) Checkbox style or something common for each install command.

Related question - did you notice that you can add multiple dependencies before clicking OK?

Nope, I think I just double-clicked. - Notice about hitting Ctrl for more than one package might be recommended - or at least I didn't see it.

Can I ask what scenarios you'd like to use offline build in? What advantages do you find most useful over IBW installs?

There is the one big scenario were we want to just deliver some storage which gets build in. The whole procedure IBW w/ AnswerFile takes longer than just applying it from a fast machine to the storage itself.I'm more into XPe style at all.

Exporting templates - What we were thinking is that you can now accomplish this functionality with custom modules created in MD. If you go into MD, don't add any payload, and add dependencies on modules you want in your "template", you now have a module
that brings in other modules when you add it in ICE. Does that meet your needs?

Top level - Top level means you manually added the module to your answer file. Not top level means it was brought in through dependency resolution.

Disabled - Thanks for the insight. All valid points. We'll see what we can do about this.

Module ordering - Thanks. The ordering between modules we were thinking of today is that you could specify other modules that need to be installed before your module. This way, if you have a module with a plugin for a program, you can say that the program
needs to be installed before your module with the plugin. This allows us to get away from the concept of a global install order between all modules, which would be complicated, and hopefully solves most install order concerns. Do you think "install these before
my module" would work for your needs, or do you need more flexability for certain scenarios?

Offline build - We actually did some research into offline build, and compared performance of offline building to IBW installs. We took a slow device and ran IBW on it, and a fast dev machine and did offline build, and in nearly all cases, offline build
was slower. This was contradictory to what we originally thought, so we investigated further and found that a few things were really slowing down offline build.

1) With offline build, you have to commit your WIM file after applying the unattend. On a maximum configuration, this took between 30 minutes and an hour.

2) With offline build, after you commit your WIM, you have to apply it back to the device. This replaces the IBW "installing packages" phase of setup, but it still takes ~30 minutes for a max config, so after offline building, your install still isn't instant.

3) Virus scanning and search indexing really slow down the offline build process. On your device, these services don't exist, so installing all the packages is relatively quick. When you have virus scanning and search indexing processing all your changes,
it's painfully slow. In our tests, IBW would complete /apply-unattend is ~2 hours, offline build with both virus scanning and search indexing would take ~3.25 hours, without virus scanning, ~2 hours, and without both, ~1.5 hours. So, if you turn everything
off, it's ~30 minutes faster, but that time gets eaten up by #1 and #2, so you're really not saving time. Of course, you could just say that users should turn these things off, but we as Microsoft can't really recommend that users do that due to security and
other concerns.

So, in short, we postponed investigations into offline build due to these performance concerns. If there are other benefits you see in offline build that make it particularly useful for you, or if you actually do see a performance benefit that we've missed,
we'd be interested to hear about it.

Exporting templates - What we were thinking is that you can now accomplish this functionality with custom modules created in MD. If you go into MD, don't add any payload, and add dependencies on modules you want in your "template", you now have
a module that brings in other modules when you add it in ICE. Does that meet your needs?

ATM I'm not completely sure about the structure.Generally you're right. But the ability to use XML/Config/Answer-Files templates allows to prototype/test and configure in a way much better, faster and easier way.I think my example with MSI
and MSM (Merge Modules) fits it.

<STRIKE>

Imagine some base application like Lotus Notes or something similar. You also have updates and settings for this application and also other Customers which use it.So now I would create more 1 EMD file for the Base, 1 for specific updates, 1 for specific
settings. (Why? to be flexible... some customers want exactly a specific version of some applications)Now I can group this into 1 EMD file as 'Customer XY Lotus Notes v.XY' with the dependencies of the other 3. <-- State today.But I just want to change
the update in this package than I have to edit the grouping EMD. Maybe in one configuration they don't want the update anymore.All of this is just guessing of possibilities. I never had something like this in the real world. But I could act in anyway I wanted
with CD/TD. This will take much longer than editing some XML Template and pulling the new update or settings in.And it also keeps me away from struggling with multiple Versions of EMD files or redundancies. It's possible the way you describe it, but on the
coast of higher workload. Templates bring just more flexibility. (I think ... but not quite sure anymore)

</STRIKE>

If it's about custom Modules I also can ignore messages so I think this EMD thing without templates will/can be fine.

Module ordering - Thanks. The ordering between modules we were thinking of today is that you could specify other modules that need to be installed before your module. This way, if you have a module with a plugin for a program, you can say that the
program needs to be installed before your module with the plugin. This allows us to get away from the concept of a global install order between all modules, which would be complicated, and hopefully solves most install order concerns. Do you think "install
these before my module" would work for your needs, or do you need more flexibility for certain scenarios?

Depends on how configurable the dependencies are.I'm thinking about some 'chose on of these Modules' 'All of this' and then the order.(Example like, 1 Base Application, Updates in some variations (2-3), Settings (1-5))

Offline build

To be honest I skipped the committing step in my mind. - I had in mind that I can just apply the unattended file and then the packages get pulled in automatically without creating a new wim file first.Like on the fly/in time.

Abdel-MS: the link to documentation for the new write filter is broken

Works for me.

.NET 4 Framework: Is this now a selectable component in ICE?

Yes. Already in this first CTP

Power management: Would be great to be able to customize each of the power settings that appear within the "Power Options" utility under the Control Panel

Support of environment variables in the unattended xml while deploying to target machine.I don't really remember why I struggled with this but there was quite a reason and it was annoying.

Also the restriction of starting the autounattend setup while booting from a fixed drive annoyed me.From a UFD the setup runs instantly. I copied the pe+ds to an ssd and booted up from there and applied the image to an usb drive.I did this automatically
with some statnet.cmd script but this just took time. I don't see a reason to restrict it.

How about USB Boot function? - In the first (and only?!) CTP of WES7 it was available. Today I can't install on USB that easy in IBW environment.
(Offline Building should be possible. I did it with Win8CP already (AND ITS DAMN VERY NICE!) ;)

Investigating:
In wes7 I had to deal with some kind of problem which are driver-core related.
(Exclude some kind of Core-Drivers) - With a hack i was able to delete them but nobody form MS wanted to help us.
Otherwise i don't know things you should or should not investigate atm. - E.g. why was some brother printers in the Core? I don't get it - wasted space at all.

I'd like to echo everyone else here and really thank you for the feedback KNARZ, it's appreciated. I wanted to respond to your feedback on the Embedded Core and drivers that I've quoted above. We are aware of the variety of unnecessary drivers
in Standard 7 (like those wasted space printer drivers) and have been taking some steps to clean that up for Standard 8.

In the CTP, you'll notice that there are very few drivers (~30) included in Embedded Core by default. Just enough to get it booting on the most basic of systems, but most devices require several more drivers.

We are considering including most of the class installers and bus enumerators in the Core so that most devices and drivers can easily be installed. The footprint impact of this possible change would be < 1 MB on 32-bit systems.

It's not just about wasting space. I wrote Brad Combs and Dave Messy (hopefully I remember his name right) several times about the issue with USB Boot and NOT supporting mshdc (IDE/SATA) devices. - This is very uncommon but therefore that we're delivering
a USB Flash device we wanted to exclude/remove/disable the ide/sata support completely for security reasons. I investigated a lot of time to get this removed from the core. The best solution just would be to disable the Inbox-Driver flag for the Core drivers
so that everyone CAN remove it if he/she knows how. (I also know since Vista we can restrict classes with Group Policies but those can be modified.)
I know/understand that also the embedded team needs a core to rely on and this can cause trouble while maintaining/updates but this was really something serious for us we had to deal with.
(First I wrote script to remove the drivers than we replaced my method with little hacked DISM Provider)

Some more details....The primary factor for us to transition to WES8 is better branding customization. I understand that boot screen branding is not implemented in the CTP, but could someone from MS describe what branding capabilities will be supported
in the product release 1. Will I be able to add my own image to the boot screen? 2. will there be any MS logos on the boot screen? 3. Will I be able to hide the spinning cursor and "Welcome" text on the log in screen? 4. Will I be able to hide the "Please
wait"/"Shutting down" text on the log out screen?

1. Will I be able to add my own image to the boot screen?
To do this you need the assistance of your hardware vendor. Your hardware vendor is able to replace the boot logo with an image you choose using the UEFI BGRT table facility (see ACPI 5.0 spec 5.2.22 section). Unfortunately customization of the boot logo is
not OS software configurable at this time.

2. Will there be any MS logos on the boot screen?
Legacy BIOS: Yes, you can suppress the MS boot logo in CTP1.
UEFI: In CTP1 you can suppress the MS boot logo only if there is no logo stored in the UEFI BGRT table.

3. Will I be able to hide the spinning cursor and "Welcome" text on the log in screen?
Yes. This is available in CTP1.

4. Will I be able to hide the "Please wait"/"Shutting down" text on the log out screen?
Yes. This is available in CTP1.

Carlos, For #1, I was talking about the Windows boot screen not the BIOS splash screen. Yes, we're able to work with our board manufacturer to change the image on the BIOS boot screen. We're interested in branding the Windows boot screen, which on WES7
was either the firefly animation or a black screen. Will we be able to add our own image to this screen in WES8? No MS logos, graphics or texts on this screen correct? ps. great responsiveness by MS on this thread!

Dialog Filter Editor has been replaced by UCT(Unified Configuration Tool) with which you can config dialog filter (as well as some other tools like UWF) either locally or remotely. And the new DialogFilter is now capable of handling WPF windows
as well as .Net forms. Enjoy. :)

Thank you for the feedback. Regarding your questions on Windows boot screen customization, please refer to the below chart.
Hope the information helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Best regards,

Carlos.

Firmware
Type

Customization of the Windows
Boot Screen (this is the screen shown right after POST)

UEFI without custom boot logo in BGRT Table

UEFI with custom boot logo in BGRT Table

Legacy BIOS

Suppress Windows Logo on Boot Screen

Supported

Not supported. If there is a logo stored in the BGRT table then that logo will be shown during the Windows boot phase.
There is currently not OS supported method to suppress the boot logo stored in the UEFI GBRT table.

Thank you for the feedback. Regarding your questions on Windows boot screen customization, please refer to the below chart.
Hope the information helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Best regards,

Carlos.

Firmware
Type

Customization of the Windows
Boot Screen (this is the screen shown right after POST)

UEFI without custom boot logo in BGRT Table

UEFI with custom boot logo in BGRT Table

Legacy BIOS

Suppress Windows Logo on Boot Screen

Supported

Not supported. If there is a logo stored in the BGRT table then that logo will be shown during the Windows boot phase.
There is currently not OS supported method to suppress the boot logo stored in the UEFI GBRT table.

not cool guys, not cool. - no real improvments - just simplify some manuel steps.
splitting each boot-part apart from my pov it just adding rows. - we want official custom boot-logo support. - bootres.dll is just there and only contains the fish picture, why not providing some tool to create a custom bootres. - or providing a bootloader
which doesn't check (with a flag and W/O! watermark in the system) the digital signature on the bootres.